“Twice the Citizen”: How Military Attitudes of Superiority Undermine Civilian Control in the United States

• Author: Sharan Grewal,Risa Brooks
• DOI: 10.1177/00220027211065417
• Published date: 01 May 2022
• Date: 01 May 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2022, Vol. 66(4-5) 623–650

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00220027211065417

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

“Twice the Citizen”: How

Military Attitudes of

Superiority Undermine

Civilian Control in the United

States

Risa Brooks

1

and Sharan Grewal

2



Abstract

Civilian control of the military is central to the making of security policy, ensuring that

civilian officials and the elected leaders that appoint them oversee and decide military

affairs. This paper exposes a challenge to civilian control in the United States that

originates in the disparaging attitudes military personnel hold toward civilian society.

We argue that when military personnel view military culture as superior, they are more

likely to view civilian political leaders as illegitimate and in turn to favor actions that

undermine civilian control. We develop a typology of civilian control in which military

officers can constrain,contest and limit civilian authority. Our empirical analysis provides

strong and consistent evidence of the corrosive effects of military superiority on civilian

control across three surveys of U.S. military personnel: the 1998-99 TISS survey of

2901 military officers, a 2014 YouGov of 275 veterans, and an original 2020 survey of

770 West Point cadets.

Keywords

national security, civil–military relations, civilian control of the military, U.S. military

1

Department of Political Science, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA

2

Department of Government, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Risa Brooks, Department of Political Science, Marquette University, 468A Wehr Physics, Milwaukee, WI

53217, USA.

Email: Risa.brooks@marquette.edu

Introduction

When Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick M. Shanahan lauded Naval Academy

graduates in May 2019 as the “best and the brightest in America,”he was echoing a

theme that many had likely heard before—that their military service made them more

honorable, selfless, and patriotic than other Americans. As Secretary Robert M. Gates

(2011) had told West Point cadets 8 years prior, “Each of you –with your talents, your

intelligence, your record of accomplishments –could have chosen something easier or

safer and of course better-paid. But you took on the mantle of duty, honor and country.”

Or as the Army Reserve puts it, military service makes one “Twice the Citizen.”

1

Many in the audience likely agreed with these sentiments. In 1997, journalist Tom

Ricks documented this sense of superiority, revealing that the Marines he interviewed

exhibited a kind of contempt for American society in which civilian life is seen as

dissolute and morally dubious, while military life is disciplined and honorable. Surveys

have since shown that many military personnel view their culture as being superior to

American culture (Feaver and Kohn 2001; Schake and Mattis 2016).

Scholars have long lamented these findings, but it has been less clear why these

attitudes of superiority matter for civil–military relations. In this paper, we theorize that

these attitudes of superiority encourage military officers to support actions that un-

dermine the practice of civilian control of the military. Specifically, we argue that

military personnel exhibiting this superiority are less likely to have confidence in

civilian political leaders—that is, they question their capabilities, motives and whether

they merit respect as leaders of the Department of Defense. In turn, they are likely to

favor three actions that undermine civilian control. Specifically, they favor constraining

civilian choices by appealing to the public or other elites; contesting civilian decision-

making by insisting the military leadership’s preferences be heeded in advisory

processes; and limiting civilians’scope of authority by seeking reserve domains, or

institutional authority to oversee in part or in whole specific policy or issue areas.

To evaluate these claims, we analyze data from three surveys: the 1998-99 Triangle

Institute for Security Studies (TISS) survey of 2901 active-duty military officers

and cadets (Feaver and Kohn 2001), a 2014 YouGov survey of 275 veterans (Schake

and Mattis 2016), and an original 2020 survey of 770 West Point cadets. The TISS and

YouGov surveys have been indispensable resources for analysis of U.S. civil–military

relations. Yet, while their top-line findings that many officers regard civilian society

contemptuously have caused consternation among scholars of civil–military relations,

the empirical relationship between those attitudes and support for civilian control has

not previously been explored. Meanwhile, the survey of West Point cadets is fully

original, and provides an essential complement to the surveys of active duty officers

and veterans. Temporal differences in when the three surveys were administered as well

as variation across the sample population, comprising former, present and future of-

ficers, also helps ensure that the findings are not particular to one cohort in the military.

Across all three surveys, we show that there are large and robust correlations

between military personnel viewing military culture as superior and viewing civilian

624 Journal of Conflict Resolution 66(4-5)